This post has nothing to do with religion, spirituality, or beliefs – just common sense, good judgment, and consideration for others.
The cell phone may be one of the most useful, as well as one of the most annoying, inventions in recent history. I was at the deli counter recently when a woman’s cell phone rang. She answered it, then another call came in. She told the first caller she’d call back, then told the second caller she’d call back. Meanwhile, progress at the deli counter ground to a halt while she’s juggling her calls.
What’s wrong with this picture? First of all, when a person is involved with other people, transacting business, or doing something requiring concentration (like DRIVING!), then the cell phone should be turned off or put on vibrate so as not to annoy others. You can always check your messages and call bank later. NOTHING is that urgent unless you are an EMS first responder or fire fighter.
It scares me when I see women talking on a cell phone while attempting to maneuver a huge SUV around a parking lot (or even worse, in traffic). It annoys me when I see somebody cradling the phone and having a conversation when trying to pay at the checkout counter. It irritates me when I’m forced to listen to someone’s conversation on a bus or while waiting in line.
What’s the answer? Turn the phone off when driving (especially), transacting
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Saturday, January 26, 2008
What the Bible Says About the Beginning of Life
Below is an article of interest that may put the sanctity of life into perspective for you:
The Bible is far from silent on the topic of the sanctity of human life, especially preborn life in the womb:
Q. Why Should We Value Life?
A. “Know that the LORD Himself is God; it is He who has made us, and not we ourselves; we are His people and the sheep of His pasture” (Psalm 100:3, NASV).
“Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the One who formed you from the womb, ‘I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself, and spreading out the earth all alone . . .’” (Isaiah 44:24, NASV).
“But now, O LORD, Thou art our Father, we are the clay, and Thou our potter; and all of us are the work of Thy hand” (Isaiah 64:8, NASV).
Q. Who Is the Creator of the Preborn?
A. “For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works and that my soul knows well. My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed, and in Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, when as yet there were none of them” (Psalm 139:13-16, NKJV).
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations” (Jeremiah 1:5, NIV).
Q. How Is God Concerned With the Preborn?
A. But when He who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through His grace . . .” (Galatians 1:15, RSV).
“Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ for giving us through Christ every possible spiritual benefit as citizens of heaven! For consider what he has done—before the foundation of the world He chose us to become, in Christ, His holy and blameless children living within His constant care” (Ephesians 1:3-4, PME).
Q. Are the Preborn Human Beings?
A. “When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit…[saying] ‘As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy’” (Luke 1:41, 44, NIV).
The Lord Jesus Christ began his incarnation as an embryo, growing into a fetus, infant, child, teenager, and adult: “While they were there, the time came for the baby to born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son” (Luke 2:6-7, NIV).
Q. Who Is Responsible for Life and Death?
A. Then God spoke all these words, saying . . . ‘You shall not murder’” (Exodus 20:1, 13, NASV).
“I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live” (Deuteronomy 30:19, KJV).
Q. Are Humans Permitted to Take Life Before Birth?
A. “If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise” (Exodus 21:22-25, NIV).
Q. Should a Child Conceived as a Result of Rape or Incest Be Aborted?
A. “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin” (Deuteronomy 24:16, NKJV).
Q. Should a Child Who Might Be Born Deformed or Disabled Be Aborted?
A. “So the LORD said to him, ‘Who has made man’s mouth? Or who makes the mute, the deaf, the seeing, or the blind? Have not I, the LORD?’” (Exodus 4:11, NKJV).
“Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker, to him who is but a potsherd among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, ‘What are you making?’ Does your work say, ‘He has no hands?’ Woe to him who says to his father, ‘What have you begotten?’ or to his mother, ‘What have you brought to birth?’ This is what the LORD says—the Holy One of Israel, and its Maker: Concerning things to come, do you question Me about My children, or give Me orders about the work of My hands?” (Isaiah 45:9-11, NIV).
“Yet, to shame the wise, God has chosen what the world counts folly, and to shame what is strong, God has chosen what the world counts weakness” (1 Corinthians 1:27, NIV).
Q. How Should A Woman View Her Body and the Preborn Life Growing in Her Womb?
A. “Behold, children are a gift of the LORD; the fruit of the womb is a reward” (Psalm 127:3, NASV).
“Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body” (1 Corinthians 6:19-20, NKJV).
Q. Does God Forgive Those Who Have Had Abortions?
A. “In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace . . .” (Ephesians 1:7, NKJV).
“I, even I, am the one who wipes out your transgressions for My own sake; and I will not remember your sins” (Isaiah 43:25, NASV).
by Carrie Gordon Earll, Senior Policy Analyst for Bioethics at Focus on the Family and a fellow with the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity. From Focus on My Family e-newsletter, dated 1/18/08. Copyright © 1999-2008 Focus on the Family, all rights reserved.
The Bible is far from silent on the topic of the sanctity of human life, especially preborn life in the womb:
Q. Why Should We Value Life?
A. “Know that the LORD Himself is God; it is He who has made us, and not we ourselves; we are His people and the sheep of His pasture” (Psalm 100:3, NASV).
“Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the One who formed you from the womb, ‘I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself, and spreading out the earth all alone . . .’” (Isaiah 44:24, NASV).
“But now, O LORD, Thou art our Father, we are the clay, and Thou our potter; and all of us are the work of Thy hand” (Isaiah 64:8, NASV).
Q. Who Is the Creator of the Preborn?
A. “For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works and that my soul knows well. My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed, and in Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, when as yet there were none of them” (Psalm 139:13-16, NKJV).
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations” (Jeremiah 1:5, NIV).
Q. How Is God Concerned With the Preborn?
A. But when He who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through His grace . . .” (Galatians 1:15, RSV).
“Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ for giving us through Christ every possible spiritual benefit as citizens of heaven! For consider what he has done—before the foundation of the world He chose us to become, in Christ, His holy and blameless children living within His constant care” (Ephesians 1:3-4, PME).
Q. Are the Preborn Human Beings?
A. “When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit…[saying] ‘As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy’” (Luke 1:41, 44, NIV).
The Lord Jesus Christ began his incarnation as an embryo, growing into a fetus, infant, child, teenager, and adult: “While they were there, the time came for the baby to born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son” (Luke 2:6-7, NIV).
Q. Who Is Responsible for Life and Death?
A. Then God spoke all these words, saying . . . ‘You shall not murder’” (Exodus 20:1, 13, NASV).
“I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live” (Deuteronomy 30:19, KJV).
Q. Are Humans Permitted to Take Life Before Birth?
A. “If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise” (Exodus 21:22-25, NIV).
Q. Should a Child Conceived as a Result of Rape or Incest Be Aborted?
A. “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin” (Deuteronomy 24:16, NKJV).
Q. Should a Child Who Might Be Born Deformed or Disabled Be Aborted?
A. “So the LORD said to him, ‘Who has made man’s mouth? Or who makes the mute, the deaf, the seeing, or the blind? Have not I, the LORD?’” (Exodus 4:11, NKJV).
“Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker, to him who is but a potsherd among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, ‘What are you making?’ Does your work say, ‘He has no hands?’ Woe to him who says to his father, ‘What have you begotten?’ or to his mother, ‘What have you brought to birth?’ This is what the LORD says—the Holy One of Israel, and its Maker: Concerning things to come, do you question Me about My children, or give Me orders about the work of My hands?” (Isaiah 45:9-11, NIV).
“Yet, to shame the wise, God has chosen what the world counts folly, and to shame what is strong, God has chosen what the world counts weakness” (1 Corinthians 1:27, NIV).
Q. How Should A Woman View Her Body and the Preborn Life Growing in Her Womb?
A. “Behold, children are a gift of the LORD; the fruit of the womb is a reward” (Psalm 127:3, NASV).
“Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body” (1 Corinthians 6:19-20, NKJV).
Q. Does God Forgive Those Who Have Had Abortions?
A. “In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace . . .” (Ephesians 1:7, NKJV).
“I, even I, am the one who wipes out your transgressions for My own sake; and I will not remember your sins” (Isaiah 43:25, NASV).
by Carrie Gordon Earll, Senior Policy Analyst for Bioethics at Focus on the Family and a fellow with the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity. From Focus on My Family e-newsletter, dated 1/18/08. Copyright © 1999-2008 Focus on the Family, all rights reserved.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
This Is Art?
In an earlier post I spoke on the entertainment industry. Since there is minimal control over the content of what it produces (either external or internal controls), the quality of their product leaves a lot to be desired in the area of decency. They resist any form of censorship because what they are doing is “art” and free expression is essential.
Calling TV programs and movies “art” is a stretch, in my opinion. They are artistic in some ways, but when they contain graphic sex, violence, drug use, horror, “disturbing images,” foul language, and nudity, they cease being art. They become a form of pornography, with the goal to titillate, scare, shock, or otherwise cause an audience reaction that is not good.
Now I admit that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I believe free expression in public media should be somewhat controlled (preferably self-controlled). The Constitution guarantees free expression so citizens can freely protest against the government without fear of censorship or other limitations or penalties. Free expression has now been carried to ridiculous extremes so that any kind of garbage can be put on the market and called entertainment, art, whatever, supposedly protected by the Constitution.
Much as I don’t particularly favor censorship, I believe we have gone too far in the area of “free expression.” The entertainment industry does not self-police because they have no incentive to do so. We need to do something that gives them an incentive. We have to, since some music lyrics are appalling (kill the cops, women are whores, etc.), some electronic games have graphic sex and violence, some movies are just plain awful, and much of TV continues to be a vast wasteland of mediocrity. Decades ago Newton Minnow, head of the FCC at the time, I believe, called TV a “vast wasteland.” And that was during TV’s “Golden Age!” Can you imagine what he would think today!?
Those who want more decency should not support those movies and other products that are worse than PG-13 (or the equivalent). We also shouldn’t support movies or other entertainment that are PG-13 or better but have content that we find inappropriate, such as ridiculing people of faith, for example. Let’s impact the entertainment industry where it counts – in the pocketbook. Who knows? We might begin to see better quality and more decency in its products. We can hope!
Calling TV programs and movies “art” is a stretch, in my opinion. They are artistic in some ways, but when they contain graphic sex, violence, drug use, horror, “disturbing images,” foul language, and nudity, they cease being art. They become a form of pornography, with the goal to titillate, scare, shock, or otherwise cause an audience reaction that is not good.
Now I admit that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I believe free expression in public media should be somewhat controlled (preferably self-controlled). The Constitution guarantees free expression so citizens can freely protest against the government without fear of censorship or other limitations or penalties. Free expression has now been carried to ridiculous extremes so that any kind of garbage can be put on the market and called entertainment, art, whatever, supposedly protected by the Constitution.
Much as I don’t particularly favor censorship, I believe we have gone too far in the area of “free expression.” The entertainment industry does not self-police because they have no incentive to do so. We need to do something that gives them an incentive. We have to, since some music lyrics are appalling (kill the cops, women are whores, etc.), some electronic games have graphic sex and violence, some movies are just plain awful, and much of TV continues to be a vast wasteland of mediocrity. Decades ago Newton Minnow, head of the FCC at the time, I believe, called TV a “vast wasteland.” And that was during TV’s “Golden Age!” Can you imagine what he would think today!?
Those who want more decency should not support those movies and other products that are worse than PG-13 (or the equivalent). We also shouldn’t support movies or other entertainment that are PG-13 or better but have content that we find inappropriate, such as ridiculing people of faith, for example. Let’s impact the entertainment industry where it counts – in the pocketbook. Who knows? We might begin to see better quality and more decency in its products. We can hope!
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Cleaning Up the Entertainment Industry
What happens where the literature and entertainment industries are basing their products strictly on what produces the most profit? The quality sinks to the lowest common denominator, which we are seeing today. That’s why Jesus calls us to be salt: we are to act as a preservative to prevent this kind of corruption in society, because God wants us to lead righteous lives. We as Christians are to work to eliminate corruption, not only in individual lives, but also in society so as to make it more upright and fair.
Christians are criticized for doing this, being told we are imposing our morals on an unwilling public. However, it is the media, the entertainment industry, the makers of games, and the publishing industry that are imposing their lack of decent values on the rest of us. Why are they doing this? Because it sells. Again, appealing to the lowest common denominator that gives them the best profit margin.
When a decent movie does come out, it often doesn’t last very long in the theaters. For example, I wanted to take the church youth group to see the Veggie Tales movie on last Friday evening. However, it was only showing in the afternoon, no longer in the evening, after only one week in the theater. And it’s playing in only one theater in this whole area. Why? Because people typically don’t support these kinds of movies.
So we as Christians should vote with our attendance, avoiding the bad movies and supporting the good ones. We have no right to complain about the entertainment industry when we don’t support the “good” movies, we allow our kids to buy and play inappropriate games (they do have sex and violence in them, in case you didn’t know), and we don’t monitor what they are watching on TV or doing on the Internet. We have nobody to blame but ourselves.
Since the entertainment industry is in business to make money, they’ll peddle the products that people will buy. So let’s take the kids to see Veggie Tales and other decent movies, and let’s stop supporting the trash that is polluting our kids’ minds.
Christians are criticized for doing this, being told we are imposing our morals on an unwilling public. However, it is the media, the entertainment industry, the makers of games, and the publishing industry that are imposing their lack of decent values on the rest of us. Why are they doing this? Because it sells. Again, appealing to the lowest common denominator that gives them the best profit margin.
When a decent movie does come out, it often doesn’t last very long in the theaters. For example, I wanted to take the church youth group to see the Veggie Tales movie on last Friday evening. However, it was only showing in the afternoon, no longer in the evening, after only one week in the theater. And it’s playing in only one theater in this whole area. Why? Because people typically don’t support these kinds of movies.
So we as Christians should vote with our attendance, avoiding the bad movies and supporting the good ones. We have no right to complain about the entertainment industry when we don’t support the “good” movies, we allow our kids to buy and play inappropriate games (they do have sex and violence in them, in case you didn’t know), and we don’t monitor what they are watching on TV or doing on the Internet. We have nobody to blame but ourselves.
Since the entertainment industry is in business to make money, they’ll peddle the products that people will buy. So let’s take the kids to see Veggie Tales and other decent movies, and let’s stop supporting the trash that is polluting our kids’ minds.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Jesus said that his followers are to be salt and light in the world. Jesus told his disciples (Matthew 5:13a, 14a, NLT): “You are the salt of the earth.” and “You are the light of the world.” The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was salt and light in many ways.
A way in which we can be salt is through various outreach ministries and social action to improve quality of life. Displaying God’s compassion and kindness by our actions is a good and appropriate thing for Christians to do. However, the gospel must also be clearly communicated, in addition to social action and public involvement by Christians. Social action has its place, but is temporary. Saving people’s souls lasts for all eternity.
Martin Luther King, Jr., was salt and light to a dark world of hatred and oppression. He communicated the gospel in his preaching as well as in his actions, shining the light of Jesus to all who would hear. At the same time, he struggled to reduce oppression, to have justice for all citizens, and to provide equal opportunities regardless of race. Yet he did this without encouraging violent protests, rioting, or any means that would bring shame to Jesus Christ, whom he served. Dr. King was salt of the earth because he was acting as a preservative to reduce the corruption of hatred and bigotry, and he did it in the name of Jesus.
Not everybody is called to activism, but everyone can, in some way, protest against injustice, oppression, and evil. Let us remember these words of The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., spoken in 1958: “He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.”
A way in which we can be salt is through various outreach ministries and social action to improve quality of life. Displaying God’s compassion and kindness by our actions is a good and appropriate thing for Christians to do. However, the gospel must also be clearly communicated, in addition to social action and public involvement by Christians. Social action has its place, but is temporary. Saving people’s souls lasts for all eternity.
Martin Luther King, Jr., was salt and light to a dark world of hatred and oppression. He communicated the gospel in his preaching as well as in his actions, shining the light of Jesus to all who would hear. At the same time, he struggled to reduce oppression, to have justice for all citizens, and to provide equal opportunities regardless of race. Yet he did this without encouraging violent protests, rioting, or any means that would bring shame to Jesus Christ, whom he served. Dr. King was salt of the earth because he was acting as a preservative to reduce the corruption of hatred and bigotry, and he did it in the name of Jesus.
Not everybody is called to activism, but everyone can, in some way, protest against injustice, oppression, and evil. Let us remember these words of The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., spoken in 1958: “He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.”
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Post-Denominational Age?
In a recent post I reproduced an article on Mormonism that I thought would be of interest. In that article, the author, Noah Feldman of the New York Times, states: “Our post-denominational age should be the perfect time for a Mormon to become president, or at least the Republican nominee.”
I want to focus on his use of the term “post-denominational age.” I believe in many respects we are in a post-denominational age. When mentioning to “denominations” I’ll be referring to Protestant denominations, such as Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, Reformed, and others. Although we may be in or approaching a post-denominational age in Protestantism, there is still a large divide between the two major divisions of western Christianity: the Roman Catholic Church and Protestantism. Those divisions run deep in the areas of loyalty to the pope, and matters of theology and practice, so we are not in a “post-denominational age” when it comes to the Roman Catholic-Protestant divide.
Denominations do continue to exist in Protestantism, but appear to be less relevant in a number of ways. For example, among the fastest growing churches are the so-called independent or non-denominational churches. There are many charitable or benevolent organizations that have denominational origins, but are now inter-denominational ministries. Today, people who grew up in a certain denomination think nothing of attending a church of a different denomination.
Moreover, I suspect most Protestants are either unaware or don’t particularly care about the theological uniqueness of any particular denomination. Many choose a church for reasons other than theology or denomination. More important to them are other considerations, such as location, youth programs, pastor, friends in that church, worship style, music program, special ministries that address their needs, Bible studies, etc.
The way things seem to be going, I suspect that the current denominations may eventually split along liberal-conservative lines. We are already seeing the Episcopal Church in the U.S. on the verge of dividing. After these splits have occurred, these new denominations may then re-form along conservative and liberal lines. So, for example, the liberal Episcopal Church, separated from its conservative Episcopal counterpart, could conceivably merge with the liberal Presbyterian Church, the liberal Methodist Church, or the liberal Lutheran Church. The conservative churches would do the same, resulting in several of new denominations formed out of the remnants of the former ones. The good news is that these newly-formed denominations should be less prone to internal strife (hopefully!) compared to the conservative-liberal struggles that are currently tearing churches apart.
I’m not saying that I see this as desirable, but I see it possibly happening if current trends continue.
I want to focus on his use of the term “post-denominational age.” I believe in many respects we are in a post-denominational age. When mentioning to “denominations” I’ll be referring to Protestant denominations, such as Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, Reformed, and others. Although we may be in or approaching a post-denominational age in Protestantism, there is still a large divide between the two major divisions of western Christianity: the Roman Catholic Church and Protestantism. Those divisions run deep in the areas of loyalty to the pope, and matters of theology and practice, so we are not in a “post-denominational age” when it comes to the Roman Catholic-Protestant divide.
Denominations do continue to exist in Protestantism, but appear to be less relevant in a number of ways. For example, among the fastest growing churches are the so-called independent or non-denominational churches. There are many charitable or benevolent organizations that have denominational origins, but are now inter-denominational ministries. Today, people who grew up in a certain denomination think nothing of attending a church of a different denomination.
Moreover, I suspect most Protestants are either unaware or don’t particularly care about the theological uniqueness of any particular denomination. Many choose a church for reasons other than theology or denomination. More important to them are other considerations, such as location, youth programs, pastor, friends in that church, worship style, music program, special ministries that address their needs, Bible studies, etc.
The way things seem to be going, I suspect that the current denominations may eventually split along liberal-conservative lines. We are already seeing the Episcopal Church in the U.S. on the verge of dividing. After these splits have occurred, these new denominations may then re-form along conservative and liberal lines. So, for example, the liberal Episcopal Church, separated from its conservative Episcopal counterpart, could conceivably merge with the liberal Presbyterian Church, the liberal Methodist Church, or the liberal Lutheran Church. The conservative churches would do the same, resulting in several of new denominations formed out of the remnants of the former ones. The good news is that these newly-formed denominations should be less prone to internal strife (hopefully!) compared to the conservative-liberal struggles that are currently tearing churches apart.
I’m not saying that I see this as desirable, but I see it possibly happening if current trends continue.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Article on Mormonism
Below is an article of interest concerning Mormonism. As I’ve said before, I don’t agree with the Mormon faith on a large number of points, and I don’t believe they can be called “Christian” because they deviate significantly from apostolic Christian belief. Nevertheless, I respect their values and their discipline, and don’t have a problem with a Mormon candidate for any office as long as he or she is qualified, and I agree with his or her positions on most issues of importance to me.
What Is It About Mormonism?
By Noah Feldman, New York Times, 1-6-08
Our post-denominational age should be the perfect time for a Mormon to become president, or at least the Republican nominee. Mormons share nearly all the conservative commitments so beloved of the evangelicals who wield disproportionate influence in primary elections. Mormons also embody, in their efficient organizational style, the managerial competence that the party’s pro-business wing considers attractive. For the last half-century, Mormons have been so committed to the Republican Party that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints once felt the need to clarify that Republican affiliation is not an actual condition of church membership.
Yet the Mormons’ political loyalty is not fully reciprocated by their fellow Republicans. Twenty-nine percent of Republicans told the Harris Poll last year that they probably or definitely would not vote for a Mormon for president. Elsewhere, the reasons for the aversion to Mormons are harder to pin down — bigotry can be funny that way — but they are certainly not theological. A majority of Americans have no idea what Mormons believe. Mormonism’s political problem arises, in large part, from the disconcerting split between its public and private faces. The church’s most inviting public symbols — pairs of clean-cut missionaries in well-pressed white shirts — evoke the wholesome success of an all-American denomination with an idealistic commitment to clean living.
Yet at the same time, secret, sacred temple rites and garments call to mind the church’s murky past, including its embrace of polygamy, which has not been the doctrine or practice of the mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or LDS, for a century. Mormonism, it seems, is extreme in both respects: in its exaggerated normalcy and its exaggerated oddity. The marriage of these opposites leaves outsiders uncomfortable, wondering what Mormonism really is.
Quoted from “The Media Roundup”, an electronic newsletter published by The Interfaith Alliance Foundation, 1/7/08.
What Is It About Mormonism?
By Noah Feldman, New York Times, 1-6-08
Our post-denominational age should be the perfect time for a Mormon to become president, or at least the Republican nominee. Mormons share nearly all the conservative commitments so beloved of the evangelicals who wield disproportionate influence in primary elections. Mormons also embody, in their efficient organizational style, the managerial competence that the party’s pro-business wing considers attractive. For the last half-century, Mormons have been so committed to the Republican Party that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints once felt the need to clarify that Republican affiliation is not an actual condition of church membership.
Yet the Mormons’ political loyalty is not fully reciprocated by their fellow Republicans. Twenty-nine percent of Republicans told the Harris Poll last year that they probably or definitely would not vote for a Mormon for president. Elsewhere, the reasons for the aversion to Mormons are harder to pin down — bigotry can be funny that way — but they are certainly not theological. A majority of Americans have no idea what Mormons believe. Mormonism’s political problem arises, in large part, from the disconcerting split between its public and private faces. The church’s most inviting public symbols — pairs of clean-cut missionaries in well-pressed white shirts — evoke the wholesome success of an all-American denomination with an idealistic commitment to clean living.
Yet at the same time, secret, sacred temple rites and garments call to mind the church’s murky past, including its embrace of polygamy, which has not been the doctrine or practice of the mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or LDS, for a century. Mormonism, it seems, is extreme in both respects: in its exaggerated normalcy and its exaggerated oddity. The marriage of these opposites leaves outsiders uncomfortable, wondering what Mormonism really is.
Quoted from “The Media Roundup”, an electronic newsletter published by The Interfaith Alliance Foundation, 1/7/08.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)